Education & the Shifting Global Context

The more we look at events in a long term perspective, the more it appears clear that we’re living through the most significant shift of orientation, of worldview, to take place at least since the Middle Ages gave way to the Renaissance. One might even say that the world has moved into a new zone of history.

Such thoughts have long been suggested by thoughtful observers. In 1952, seven years after the greatest triumph in military history, Rollo May, one of America’s leading psychologists, wrote, “The chief problem of people in the middle decade of the 20th century is emptiness. Our middle of the twentieth century is more anxiety-ridden than any period since the breakdown of the Middle Ages. We live at one of those points in history when one way of living is in its death throes, and another is being born.” Management guru Peter Drucker’s view at mid-century was that “no one born after the turn of the [20th] century has ever known anything but a world uprooting its foundations, overturning its values and toppling its idols.”

Thus what is suggested here is not an original thought. We stand on the shoulders of giants who understood that the Western orientation has been changing at a foundational level.

And so in the following comments, we shall consider some of the core elements of this shift, and what they may suggest for education.

Globalization

When we think of globalization, we think certainly of the current crisis, but also of the longer term worldwide integration of economic and financial factors—the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, as well as jobs moving from one country to another.

But what is the essence of globalization? Simply put, it is the shrinkage of the world. Think YouTube. Think Internet and websites. For the first time in history, one person can write or film something that everyone in the world can see, if they have access to a computer. One person reaching millions, even billions. World-famous anthropologist Philip Tobias says this capacity—the computer and Internet—is the most significant social development since the invention of writing over five thousand years ago. It’s a totally new form of communication. Throughout history, radically new forms of communication have created foundational changes within the societies in which they occurred. The well-known example of the Reformation following the Western emergence of the printing press comes to mind.

As the world shrinks, everything is becoming more intermeshed—economics, politics, culture, traditions and religion. Regional concerns become world issues. Thus, age-old perspectives and worldviews no longer anchor us. For the first time in history, we humans are forging an awareness of our existence as a single entity. And it’s happening faster than permits many people to adjust. 

Globalization is changing the distribution of geopolitical power. Since the end of World War II, the U. S. has been the dominant world power and the guarantor of a certain degree of stability and security. The major world institutions—the IMF, World Bank, U.N., NATO—were conceived and primarily controlled by the U.S. But as we’re all experiencing, globalization has been creating other centers of economic and political power—Brazil, Russia, India, China. Thus Europe and the U. S. are increasingly only two of several centers of geopolitical influence.

Perhaps the most acute effect of globalization is the global crisis of identity taking place. It has taken a series of crises in France, Holland, Britain, Germany, and increasingly the U.S., for the issue of identity finally to be recognized as central to the contemporary global crisis. As immigration increases, the stories and myths that form the basis of national identities tend to wane. One result is a form of national angst. As The Times quotes one British historian, “A white majority that invented the national mythologies underpinning modern European culture lives in an almost perpetual state of fear that it and its way of life are about to disappear.” The Catholic Church in Europe is facing the distinct probability of Islam eventually becoming the largest European religion. The fear of such demographic and cultural shifts and their potential consequence is part of the subtext for everything else happening in Europe. 

This issue of identity is an underlying dynamic between the Muslim world and the West. Muslims are asking themselves, “Will globalization, based on the Western, rationalistic, consumerist, postmodern ethos, ultimately mean the end of Islam?” Such unknowns form a significant part of the psychological dynamic fueling terrorism.

Profound questions arise for all people as globalization collapses the national, racial and religious boundaries that heretofore protected—and even defined—identity. “Who am I? Who is my group? Do I even have a group any more? What does ‘national allegiance’ mean in a global era? What does ‘race’ mean in a world where people of all ethnicities are increasingly inter-marrying?”

The whole human race—whether pre-modern, modern, or postmodern—is involved in a vast process of redefining identity. Some move forward into the future, some cling to the past, both of which create new social tensions.

And the pace of globalization accelerates. Thus educators might do well to consider whether the phenomenon of globalization should be defined as a distinct academic subject which could be included in social studies.

Technology

We all know that the explosion of new technologies is a primary force driving global change. While elementary forms of technology are older than Homo sapiens, the first systematic approach to science and technology was expressed by Francis Bacon in the17th century.  Wrote Bacon, the “true and lawful end of science is that human life be enriched by new discoveries and powers.” Four centuries later, Einstein echoed Bacon, and emphasized that “concern for man himself and his fate must form the chief interest of all technical endeavors.”

But questions arise as to whether we really know what we are doing. Is Einstein’s dictum—concern for man himself and his fate—is this what propels scientific research today?   

Doubts are being expressed. The Economist asks, “Is the speed of technology development exceeding humanity’s moral and mental capacities to control it?” Newsweek magazine says flat out that "information overload is outstripping our capacity to cope, antiquating our laws, transforming our mores, reshuffling our economy, reordering our priorities and putting our Constitution to the fire." 

Why do they make such statements? For one thing, the experts tell us that the pace of technological change doubles every decade; that because technological change is growing at an exponential rate, the 21st century will see one thousand times more technological change than did the last century.

What does such rapid change do to us as individuals? Psychologists have long known that subjecting people to more change than they can fit into their mental picture of life causes serious psychological problems. Thus the U.S. government estimates that half of all Americans will require some form of psychological counseling at some point in their lives. Some experts even say that by generating such rapid change, we are tampering with the preconditions of rationality.

And what about our children? What are we doing to them? Clearly, parents no longer control the “information environment” in which their children grow up; and such control has been a prime function of parenthood ever since Rousseau proposed childhood as a special category of life with its unique needs. Indeed, many researchers of the effects of technology on children say we have now come to the “end of childhood” as a special category of growth.

As we look to the future of technology, what is our responsibility to coming generations? Some scientists are seeking to create certain technologies for purposes that appear to be to replace human meaning and significance altogether. Some of the world’s most brilliant scientists are seeking to create what they call the Post-Human Age, create something they think is superior to the human being.

Thus, it becomes clear that in some realms of scientific research, we are no longer concerned with meeting any human need, nor is there any defined ethical framework within which R&D takes place. Thus Marvin Minsky, co-founder of MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, says, “Suppose that the robot had all the virtues of people and was smarter and understood things better. Then why would we prefer those grubby old people? I don’t see anything wrong with human life being devalued if we have something better.”

Or consider Jaron Lanier’s comments. Lanier coined the term “virtual reality” and founded the world’s first virtual reality company. Writes Lanier, “Medical science, neuroscience, computer science, genetics, biology—separately and together, seem to be on the verge of abandoning the human realm altogether…it grows harder to imagine human beings remaining at the center of the process of science. Instead, science appears to be in charge of its own process, probing and changing people in order to further its own course, independent of human agency.”

Lanier raises the basic question of our future. Throughout history, the pursuit of knowledge has primarily been for the sake of knowledge itself.  Today, whether we like it or not, science—and the technology it creates—is increasingly the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of power. Man has achieved the knowledge and power to destroy himself both physically and morally. Thus, as Peter Drucker observed half a century ago, “a new dimension has been added to human evolution.”

The question of knowledge and power has been problematic throughout history. But our technological ability now makes that question stand as the defining issue at the center of existence. As Drucker notes, if we do not know what power is for, we cannot say what its limits are. If we do not specify its proper use, we will not be able to stop its abuse.

And so we return to Bacon and Einstein: “Concern for man himself and his fate must form the chief interest of all technical endeavors.” The decision of whether a particular line of research and development is in the best interests of “man himself and his fate” may best be determined not so much by scientists, but by a body of “elders” which has the larger and longer lasting interests of humanity at heart.

Underlying any such efforts might be the observations of Rene Dubos and Barbara Ward in their 1972 book, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet: “Civilizations commonly die from the excessive development of certain characteristics which had at first contributed to their success,” they suggest. “Our form of industrial civilization suffers from having allowed experts to make growth and efficiency, rather than the quality of life, the main criterion of success. . . if things are in the saddle, it is because we have put them there. . . the demonic force in our life is not technology per se, but our propensity to consider means as ends.” [Emphasis added]

The elemental effects of technology on cognition and the future of our species, force us to consider the value of quasi-mandatory academic courses in “the relationship between technology and humans” being offered to students of the appropriate age. There is ample research on this issue, foremost of which is the work of Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman and Lewis Mumford.

Some Implications for Education

Against this background, it would seem the questions to be answered are immense:  In an age when globalization is erasing all the old boundaries that provided identity, when young people get more information from watching TV than they do from all their years of classroom instruction, when all knowledge is available by the press of a computer button, when commercial advertising has become the primary source of value formation, then the basic question becomes, “What is education?  What is the product education seeks to produce?”     

To address this question, it would seem that education needs to enable young people to grapple with questions far beyond the conventional concerns of traditional education.  Questions such as: In an age of global impressions and easy mobility, how does education foster a sense of rootedness in time and place?  In a technology-driven age, how does education strengthen the enduring human values that give meaning and fulfillment to the individual?  In an age where everything is in flux—national purpose, collective values, institutional integrity—how does education help the individual find stability and anchorage?  In an age when, as Wired magazine’s Kevin Kelly writes, “truth is something you assemble yourself on your own screen as you jump from link to link,” how is a young person to find those deeper human truths that have been transmitted over centuries through culture, and are valid for all time?

Even more, how does education help answer the crisis of identity that is engulfing our young people? All the traditional sources of identity are in upheaval—family, ethnic group, nation, culture and religion.  Thus we see students increasingly turning to technology to seek some source of identity.  Young children once found early identity in relationship to animals—the family dog or a pet gerbil.  Now they turn to computerized toys or computer games—in essence, a shift from living animals to dead matter. 

Adolescents increasingly seek identity through various websites on the Internet.  As they jump from “Facebook” to other websites, they sometimes display differing aspects of their personalities, depending on with whom they are talking and how they want to appear.  The result is that many young people are not remaining true to their deepest inner selves, and they are developing what psychologists call “multiple personalities.”  Many are finding it easier to cope with the “pseudo-reality” on the Internet rather than with life’s authentic reality off the Internet.  This is the antithesis of the purpose of human growth and maturation—indeed, of education—which in all cultures and ages has been to develop a whole and unified personality in young people.  Helping students understand and come to terms with such issues is one of education’s greatest challenges.

Obviously, children must be educated in the traditional academic subjects so they are at least equal to the best in the world. But if the world is moving into a new period of its development—which is what globalization represents—education must equip children to grapple with life’s fundamental questions, especially as the changing character of the family often prevents the family from fulfilling that function. Such questions would include:

What is at the core of liberty and how is it sustained? In a society where the primary value source (TV) is collective, how does a child develop his or her individual sense of being, yet relate that being to some sense of larger responsibility to the community? In an age of mobility and global TV impressions, what can help a child realize a sense of rootedness in both time and place?  What does a student need to know when there’s so much that can be known? How does one gain self-understanding, self-control and self-direction? What gives life its highest significance, and what saves it from meaninglessness?

If these questions seem remote or abstract, consider one student commencement speaker at one of the most prestigious universities in the U.S. He described his class as “not knowing how it relates to the past or the future, having little sense of the present, no life-sustaining beliefs, secular or religious, and consequently no goal and no path to effective action.”

Such issues as discussed here are not easily or readily answered.  But a people who cannot answer them cannot sustain a civilized life of liberty. Thus it would seem that conveying to young people an elemental sense of how to create and sustain a civilized life of liberty ought to be one of the aims of education.  

However, educators are not necessarily an amalgam of political scientist, psychologist, futurist, philosopher or clairvoyant, which is what the times seem to demand. Nevertheless, it may be that the training of educators needs to be deepened and widened to better equip them to address some of the issues that are profoundly influencing the substance of the subjects they teach.  It may be that teacher training programs should include courses that better enable educators to address some of the transformative issues discussed above.

It is not a question of burdening educators with more material to convey to their students. It is more a question of educators’ own worldview. Do educators adequately comprehend, at the deepest level possible, the dramatic developments that are restructuring our concepts and institutions? If so, then that understanding will infuse their teaching of their traditional subjects. In a sense, it is not primarily a question of teaching “more;” it is a question of relating what is taught to the insights and developments that are reshaping the global landscape.

Conclusion

We are living through a new period of human history that is of a different magnitude and depth from anything experienced in the past few centuries, and there is need to comprehend this change in its psychological dimension.  Globalization is more than a technological and geopolitical shift.  At root, it is a cultural and psychological change.  Ever since 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia, the primary Western perspective for organizing our affairs has been the nation-state.  But that framework is in the midst of changing to a global perception.  Such a change is not something that takes place in outer space somewhere.  It takes place in the collective psyche of humanity.  It is a change in us that is taking place.  This is part of the genesis of the global crisis of identity that is manifest from France to China.  This challenge is the defining issue of our time, and resolution of all other issues may in some measure depend on our success in meeting that test.

With every new era comes the necessity to redefine and reshape the foundational institutions—including education—of collective existence. Such a necessity is only part of the challenge confronting all of us as we move into a new phase of human experience.
A new orientation, a new worldview, is attempting to unfold itself for the world. It has happened before in history, and now it is our turn to deal with the challenges that arise when a fresh point of reference emerges for the world.